Low Tiers: Getting Worse Over Time?

[Cryptic C62]

As I see it, there are essentially three reasons to use a low-tier character in any given match. The first: although a particular character may be poor overall, it may have a workable advantage for a particular matchup. Pichu, for example, gets his **** rocked easily, but does have the ability to chain grab several high-tier characters.

The second: the player believes that the particular character has previously-unknown potential, or perhaps that he is able to take advantage of the character's strengths and prevent its weaknesses from being exploited.

The third: the player believes that their opponent will be so unfamiliar with the matchup that, despite playing with an objectively worse character, he'll be able to win anyway. A Yoshi main, for example, is going to have much more experience fighting against Marths than a Marth main will have fighting against Yoshis.

While the first two reasons are certainly valid, it is important to keep in mind that the metagame for high-tier characters is still evolving and improving. As such, it could be argued that the third reason given above is the most important.

The potential problem is that, as more players are inspired to play low tiers with the hopes of making of use of the unfamiliarity effect, high-tier players will have more low-tier opponents to practice against, thereby negating this unfamiliarity effect.

This leads me to my main question: Will the increasing popularity of low-tier characters cause them to actually get worse over time?

 

[KirbyKaze]

Few people seriously want to get good with low tiers.

On topic: I find there's a decreasing amount of low tier players. V3ctorman has been repping Yoshi I suppose (though his videos are all combo videos or friendlies, which makes it difficult to take as seriously as AXE or Taj), we have a top player using Pikachu, and Cosmo's pushing (or pushed? Does he still play?) Zelda but beyond that... nothing, really.

Ka-Master quit for his Mormon mission, Bum has been retired forever, Jash stopped ages ago, Anther quit a while ago, etc.

On the whole I thought there had been a decline.

 

[Cryptic C62]

While there may have been a decline in the number of low-tier players participating in major tournaments, there may may still be a significant number of lower-level players and in-state-only players who are influenced by the efforts of the players you've mentioned.

Here's a hypothetical example: Axe inspires several players to start using Pikachu. None of them make it to a highly competitive level, but several mid-level players in Florida start using Pikachu at small local tournaments. The top-level smashers from the Florida region will be more familiar with their matchups against Pikachu despite there not being any new Pikachu players at the national level.

I hope this helps to clarify the matter.

 

[joeplicate]

i think low tiers are basically just unused/underdeveloped


no characters really get objectively "worse" over time, since everyone's been the same since the game came out. this is more of a question of terminology than anything.

on a related note:
my favorite low-tiers are ness and link

 

[AXE 09]

I think people overlook the option that people might play a certain low tier because that character is just FUN to them.

That's really the only reason why I kept playing Pikachu. I never cared if he had any "hidden potential", and I wasn't playing him just to be a gimmic or anything like that.

If I couldn't play Pikachu, honestly I don't think I would've been playing Melee for anywhere near as long as I have been playing now. The fact that a character is fun to someone will keep their interest in the game, thus making them play more, and just getting better and better.

Now, only because I've been having fun with this character, I've become what I am. I think a person's interest in the game is a big factor when determining how good someone is going to get. Sometimes people just get frustrated when only playing those high tier characters for so long, and they just might not play as much or not want to practice as much.

Basically, I didn't train so much just because I wanted to be a top level player. I trained because it was fun, specifically it was fun playing as Pikachu.

 

[darkgirku]

Yeah... what Axe said

Some people love melee as much as they do only because of a character. Usually the unique characters, but it doesn't really hafta be. You don't need an objective reason to play the game with any character.

 

[Divinokage]

I'm going to agree, I play Ganon because I love playing him.. but of course there's other reasons as well.. like accomplishing the impossible with him. Well, I did one thing now onto something even more impossible.. I really would love to win a huge tournament. =P

 

[Bamesy]

DO IT!!!

But yeah, low tiers aren't going anywhere different than where they've always been/always been headed/always scattered around etc.

This game is all about the player, everyone just loves fast easy to be effective with instant guaranteed punish offensive characters...with good reason...

Or tanks that can spam smashes (Samus onry)

 

[Divinokage]

DO IT!!!

But yeah, low tiers aren't going anywhere different than where they've always been/always been headed/always scattered around etc.

This game is all about the player, everyone just loves fast easy to be effective with instant guaranteed punish offensive characters...with good reason...

Or tanks that can spam smashes (Samus onry)

What you said sounds exactly like... an easy plan to lose weight lolll.

 

[Pink Reaper]

i think low tiers are basically just unused/underdeveloped


no characters really get objectively "worse" over time, since everyone's been the same since the game came out. this is more of a question of terminology than anything.

on a related note:
my favorite low-tiers are ness and link

actually I'd say characters could get objectively worse. Put it like this, suppose you have low tier character x and high tier character y in year Z. Both characters have reached what is considered to be the top of their metagame in year Z however in Z+1 character Y has a metagame breakthrough and becomes even better while character x stays the same. In terms of just the character, x is still exactly the same, but objectively that character has gotten worse as character y is now even better than before.

To put it in to an easier to understand terms, character y has increased the distance between himself and character x. The character might not be any worse than before but he does worse overall, so he's objectively worse.

On an unrelated note, my favorite low tier is everyone except for kirby.

 

[Zodiac]

Tl:dr but low tiers only get worse cause no one develops them. And yes they have obvious disadvantages but they could be better if their meta game was developed more and are I say it some might even become somewhat viable.

 

[joeplicate]

actually I'd say characters could get objectively worse. Put it like this, suppose you have low tier character x and high tier character y in year Z. Both characters have reached what is considered to be the top of their metagame in year Z however in Z+1 character Y has a metagame breakthrough and becomes even better while character x stays the same. In terms of just the character, x is still exactly the same, but objectively that character has gotten worse as character y is now even better than before.

To put it in to an easier to understand terms, character y has increased the distance between himself and character x. The character might not be any worse than before but he does worse overall, so he's objectively worse.

On an unrelated note, my favorite low tier is everyone except for kirby.

i think we have different ideas of "objectively" loool

if you put something like "relatively" everywhere where there was an "objectively" in what you said, then i'd basically agree. the thing is is that you're relying on fox's metagame increasing to make link's metagame "worse," or make him worse as a character.

really, i think this is just a re-hashed version of the "tiers don't exist" debate. as far as i'm concerned, characters have had the same moves since 2001 =P

and, as such, their worth as individual "characters" has been the same.
it's just that certain players, or certain trends of players, are better at using the character.

 

[Rubyiris]

For me just about every aspect of smash is enjoyable for me. Every character in the game has some aspect about them that I find fun and fresh, which is why I dabble in nearly every character in the game.

I play Falco because he's the character I have the most fun with. Not because he's arguably the best character in super irl bros melee.

 

[KirbyKaze]

I think banning some of the dumb levels has hurt some of the low tiers. Namely Young Link, who can't CP to Pokefloats and whatnot vs other terrible characters and throw crap at them for 6 minutes.

 

[IYM!]

I think people overlook the option that people might play a certain low tier because that character is just FUN to them.

That's really the only reason why I kept playing Pikachu. I never cared if he had any "hidden potential", and I wasn't playing him just to be a gimmic or anything like that.

If I couldn't play Pikachu, honestly I don't think I would've been playing Melee for anywhere near as long as I have been playing now. The fact that a character is fun to someone will keep their interest in the game, thus making them play more, and just getting better and better.

Now, only because I've been having fun with this character, I've become what I am. I think a person's interest in the game is a big factor when determining how good someone is going to get. Sometimes people just get frustrated when only playing those high tier characters for so long, and they just might not play as much or not want to practice as much.

Basically, I didn't train so much just because I wanted to be a top level player. I trained because it was fun, specifically it was fun playing as Pikachu.

I am totaly agree with you my friend, i play with Link, because OoT was a game than keep in my heart until today. I enyoi play with him, defeat strong rivals, and get better, is so fun, that is the reason for me to play smash, having a lot of exiting fight.

Sadly my character isnt a "high level" one, so is very frustating lose because my opponent have a "better Character". Is unfair, i train a lot and he only play with my like a toy (only an example). i realy would like see a balanced game

I know it, the balance dont exist, always the fast will have adventage against the slow, always the strong will have asventage agains the weak, but, ratios like 70/40, 90/10, are ridiculous. but well i am get out of the toic XP

Tl:dr but low tiers only get worse cause no one develops them. And yes they have obvious disadvantages but they could be better if their meta game was developed more and are I say it some might even become somewhat viable.

this is true, a lot of people dont have the intention to take a grat amount of time improving with a charactyer, when you can pick another one in a high level. that is one of the primary reason for why Low tiers are disapear over the time

 

[ChivalRuse]

Ka-Master quit for his Mormon mission

Luigi isnt really low tier. But even for people who think he is, look up Vist.

 

[Doser]

actually I'd say characters could get objectively worse. Put it like this, suppose you have low tier character x and high tier character y in year Z. Both characters have reached what is considered to be the top of their metagame in year Z however in Z+1 character Y has a metagame breakthrough and becomes even better while character x stays the same. In terms of just the character, x is still exactly the same, but objectively that character has gotten worse as character y is now even better than before.

To put it in to an easier to understand terms, character y has increased the distance between himself and character x. The character might not be any worse than before but he does worse overall, so he's objectively worse.

On an unrelated note, my favorite low tier is everyone except for kirby.

You don't know what objectively means. The observable move sets of the characters has not changed since version 1.02, all other "changes" are simply changes in the way people utilize these moves. It was always possible it's just that now people are using those choices differently than before.

 

[ryuu seika]

I played Kirby simply because I couldn't handle only having 2 jumps when I first picked the game up. These days I can play as other characters but other than G&W, Kirby is by far the silliest and therefore my favourite. Also, the amount of time I've spent on my Kirby means I really am far better as him than any other character.

 

[KirbyKaze]

Luigi isnt really low tier. But even for people who think he is, look up Vist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-7nzhWSWK4

*slow clap* I know Vist is okay though.

 

[Kanelol]

I started playing mew2 a few weeks ago :V

 

[Pink Reaper]

i think we have different ideas of "objectively" loool

if you put something like "relatively" everywhere where there was an "objectively" in what you said, then i'd basically agree. the thing is is that you're relying on fox's metagame increasing to make link's metagame "worse," or make him worse as a character.

really, i think this is just a re-hashed version of the "tiers don't exist" debate. as far as i'm concerned, characters have had the same moves since 2001 =P

and, as such, their worth as individual "characters" has been the same.
it's just that certain players, or certain trends of players, are better at using the character.

Yeah, i meant subjectively, but for some reason i just kept typing objectively. Probably cus im a ***.

Edit: fine tec, be that way, but now they'll think i meant something else

 

[joeplicate]

hahahaha lmao

it's coo